Customer Reviews

The Raw Deal: How the Bush Republicans Plan to Destroy Social Security and the Legacy of the New Deal

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Most reasonably aware individuals know that during his second term of office Bush has pushed social security "reform" harder than any other issue. Most will also be aware that the harder he has pushed, the less enthusiasm has been produced even within Republicans in Congress, some of whom have already declared Bush's push for privatization D.O.A., while the public at large has increasingly opposed all of Bush's efforts as they learn the details. Although Americans remain largely passive on most political issues, the great exception seems to be Social Security. An overwhelming number of Americans like Social Security and do not want to see any major alterations including no significant reduction in benefits. And given the devastation wrought in the Gulf Coast by Katrina, any significant shift to privatization by introduction of individual retirement accounts seems doomed, at least for now. Given all of this, is there still a need sounding the alarums about the Right Wing effort to destroy Social Security under the guise of "reform." The answer: yes.

Although the Right seems temporarily thwarted in their attempt to gut social security, this was not merely a short term goal, but a hope dear to political conservatives and ultra free marketers stemming back to the 1930s. Bush may have wrongly read the political winds in assuming that his political capital would allow him to begin the gutting of social security, but it isn't a dream that extreme fiscal conservatives will give up any time soon. As Conason points out in this book, Social Security was the crowning achievement of the New Deal, a program that guaranteed that tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Americans would enjoy at least one source of persistent and reliable income during their retirement years. By any measure it is both one of the most successful programs in the federal government as well as one of the most solvent and best administered. Despite profound mischaracterization by Bush and others ("lies" might be a more accurate though less polite word), it is by no means anywhere close to being "bankrupt" nor is it in any kind of trouble. So why the fuss? If it isn't, as Bush claims, broken, why the panic to "fix" it by shifting huge numbers of Americans away from social security to annuities that would be purchased by individual retirement accounts (annuities, it should be pointed out, that would have a fixed life and could run out before the life of the retiree, unlike social security)? Because it is the second largest item in the federal budget (the military annually receives around 50% after discretionary spending is considered). It is the largest program outside of the military overseen by the federal government. Fiscal hyper conservatives (I say "hyper" because even many fiscal conservatives persist in supporting social security) therefore hate social security because it is such a large hunk of the federal government, they hate it because it represents the greatest achievement of the New Deal, and they hate it because it is administered by the public and not the private sector. Many fantasize about shifting all that money away from the government and into accounts administered by the financial and investment industry. The fact that social security is a great boon to most Americans hardly bothers their conscience at all. One is reminded of one of FDR's pronouncements that all of America is not better off unless most Americans are better off. The assumption of the Far Right is "Who cares if most Americans are worse off if the privileged few is better off?"

So, while temporarily stymied, this is a beast that is going to rear its ugly head until America is a more moral and just nation, with most Americans embracing those principles. Joe Conason wants to unmask the charade that Bush's drive to "reform" social security truly is. The book consists of four chapters with an introduction and conclusion. The first chapter examines in detail what is really behind Bush's plans to "reform" social security. On the one hand, this examination is provoked by the fact that Bush's extreme and bizarre claims that social security is in crisis clashes so sharply with the reality of social security's solvency. In fact, social security is running surpluses and will continue to do so far decades unless the economy slows down dramatically (in which case the individual retirement accounts that Bush promotes will also perform badly). Yet Bush makes false claims that it is on the verge of bankruptcy. On the other hand, there is the stunning vagueness of Bush's own "plan." In fact, he has made no specific plans to put in its place. He has talked of individual retirement plans and made overly optimistic and misleading claims about their virtues (omitting the facts that the cost of administering them would take a significant hunk out of them and that the annuities would run out after a set period of time, conceivably leaving someone with nothing left in their annuity with several years left in their life). Conason also points out the inconsistency of Bush's claims. His dire warnings about the impending collapse of social security are not credible under any reasonable analysis of the program, but even at their most pessimistic would require a severe and sustained downturn in the economy. Yet when he promotes the virtues of individual retirement accounts, he makes assumptions about the extreme health of the economy. In other words, Bush wants his cake and eats it, too. Conason reveals the ideological motivations behind "reform," the desire of extreme conservatives to undo the major lasting achievement of the New Deal.

The second chapter looks at the people who were involved in Bush's commission to privatize social security. This commission contrasts markedly with one that was convened under Ronald Reagan. Chaired by Alan Greenspan, Reagan's commission was comprised with representatives from across the political and economic spectrum and suggested a range of suggestions that represented a legitimate consensus on how to make social security solvent through the middle of the 21st century. Bush's commission, on the other hand, was formed exclusively of opponents of social security and proponents of privativization. As Conason examines in detail who the individuals behind the commission are, one realizes to what degree this effort to "reform" social security is base in the ideology of a relatively small number of right wing individuals. Chapter Three takes this to another level by looking at the phony grass roots organizations, what are known as "Astroturf" outfits, which appear everywhere to promote "reform" but do not actually have significant membership or any membership at all. Many of these exist merely as websites. Some have active membership lists that run into the double digits, such as the pseudo-African American outfit Project 21, which is largely headed by white males. In fact, there are no significant grass roots organizations that promote privatization on the scale of groups that oppose it, let alone the AARP and its 35 million members. Conason does not point this out, but this is an issue that divides many in the very conservative wing of the Republican party. The Religious Right, though overwhelmingly and passionately conservative on cultural issues, such social issues as abortion, and on foreign policy issues touching Israel, nonetheless tends to be far more mainstream or even to the left on economic issues. As Michael Lind has pointed out in his fine book on the Right UP FROM CONSERVATIVISM, most Americans are conservative on social issues but liberal on economic issues, and the Religious Right is not an exception on this. So, even many on the Right are as passionate in their defense of social security as the Left. Because the grass roots Right doesn't always go with the leadership on this issue, the need for Astroturf organizations are created.

The final chapter focuses on the organizations that will profit from privativization and the enormous boon that would redound to banks, investment houses, and insurance companies (I work for one of the latter and was distraught when I saw my company identified as a major funder of the Cato Institute's initiative to replace social security with private accounts). Like so many of Bush's initiatives, this social security revision is one that typically benefits his donor base (as opposed to other things he does that unifies his voter base), but hurts the vast number of Americans. The parallels here are his tax cuts that led overwhelmingly to benefits for those at the top of the economic pile and his prescription drug benefit that will lead to virtually no significant aid to seniors but massive profits to the drug industry.

This is an issue that Americans cannot remain apathetic on. Although Bush may attempt to revive his individual retirement accounts suggest, more likely we'll have to see a new president provide leadership on this issue. It does raise again, however, the issues that Thomas Frank raised in his superb book WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH KANSAS? Why do Americans continue to support Republican candidates who in fact work against the interests of the vast number of Americans? The Bush years will be looked upon as years when the president worked over and over and over for the welfare of the very wealthy and for large corporations, but did absolutely nothing for middle class and poor Americans. In fact, in nearly every way middle class and poor Americans will be much worse off after eight years of Bush (and by "middle class" I actually mean all but the top 1% in the economy). As long as Americans continue this trend of voting on social and cultural issues that can't and won't be addressed by politicians and focus instead on truly political issues such as social security and tax fairness (in contrast to the pigs-at-the-trough cuts we have seen under Bush) that do in fact effect them, there will be danger that things they count on could be endangered. Conason's book, therefore, should be read by anyone concerned about the ongoing welfare of the vast bulk of American's.

Joe Conason continues providing the American public with much needed information in an era when many other news sources have all-too-conveniently decided to become mouthpieces. This time, he illustrates that the Bush administration plan to privatize Social Security will hurt a majority of Americans and very badly.

Reading this book revisits the ongoing political battle of Social Security. Despite bipartisan support from the American people and a much smaller social welfare net than in many other Western democracies, opponents of Social Security insisted that this program would introduce fascism into American society.

Poverty rates have drastically fallen among older Americans since the 1930's as a direct consequence of Social Security.

However the right remains intent on privatization through "Individual Retirement Accounts". Make no mistake about it, the opponents of Social Security have not gone away, they are just trying to seduce the American voter through 'different' arguments to advance the same public policies. They are discovering that other people and organizations are already onto this plan.

The nation's largest interest group organization, the AARP, and its 35 million members oppose the Bush administration's plan. However, rather than listening to the American masses, the G.W. Bush administration instead found another way to continue trying to justify its actions.

That the president and his moneyed supporters are resorting to 'puppet organizations' which rely on slick images while commanding only a fraction (if that much) of grassroots support for this initiative really says just how unpopular the Bush proposal is.

Social Security is so widely supported that even Evangelical Christians, Bush's 'foot soldiers' for many other causes--are also criticizing him. The only people who stand to benefit from this particular 'overhaul' of the Social Security system are the country's extremely wealthy heads of large corporations. They are hardly the `common people' whom the president claims to advocate for in his public speeches.

Does it surprise anybody that many people in the `will benefit' group were also large donors to the two Bush presidential campaigns? I thought not. Privatizing Social Security offers no benefit to the country because it is a payback to Bush's political friends. Why should they care what happens to a majority of the American people as long as they get whatever they want.

Research for this book stresses other conservative Republicans took different routes for complex reasons.

Even Ronald Reagan's administration, for how conservative he was and how frequently his administration promised to bring America back to the 'good old days' knew enough not to keep pushing through their dream of dismantling Social Security. Additionally, Reagan's administration had enough political savvy to understand that stacking their 'study committee' in favor of people who all just happened to support privatization was a very bad PR blunder. Why didn't anybody at the Bush White House even bother to follow these earlier moves if they wanted to see public approval of their actions?

Conason's book on this socioeconomic catastrophe is only four chapters. However his research remains wholly lay accessible. The dangers of Social Security privatization is not just something for some people to understand, it is something which every American needs to know about. Echoing history's best muckrakers, Conason's factual research ultimately provides a passionate call to arms.

I worked as an expert on US Social Security policy for 7 years in Washington, DC: 4 years at the Social Security Administration (Office of Policy) and 3 years as assistant director of Social Security policy research for a non-partisan Washington, DC non-profit organization. (Type "Kelly Olsen and Social Security" into any search engine if you're unconvinced that I know what I'm talking about here.)

Two years after leaving public service in Washington, DC in 2003, I wrote an op-ed in the Asheville Citizen-Times (March 20, 2005, available online at http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050320/OPINION03/503200308/1058/OPINION01) in which I basically say in 900 words what Mr. Conason says in this book. The main difference between what I said in my op-ed and what's in this book is that Mr. Conason has the space to fill in the main details.

Mr. Conason is onto the Republican elite's game of deception to undermine Social Security altogether. Andrew Biggs, who now heads up the Social Security Office of Retirement Policy under George W. Bush, actually wrote in 1999 (when he was not yet a political appointee) that "private accounts would sever the ties of middle-class and wealthy Americans to government assistance programs and diminish political support for social welfare programs." Mr. Biggs argued that "market investment of payroll taxes sets the stage for ... a new political culture that rejects government intervention in favor of individual and market freedom. In that way, Social Security reform featuring Personal Retirement Accounts doesn't send just one liberal sacred cow to the slaughterhouse. It sends the whole herd." Clear enough? It is important to note that the Republican elite's Social Security goals are far to the right of the desires of most Americans who identify themselves as Republicans.

Alas, Conason's claim that the Republican elite are out to destroy Social Security is NOT liberal alarmist hype. Mr. Conason is right on the mark in his summary of the issue, and he has written an accessible and interesting book for citizens who want to educate themselves about how the current Republican party wants to undermine the most popular and administratively efficient social program in U.S. history, dish out money to their Wall Street friends in the process, and stick taxpayers with the tremendous transition costs of doing so. Mr. Conason's book is important because Social Security is a complex issue, and it's become more difficult for intelligent concerned citizens to gather the needed facts ever since the Social Security Administration started putting out its own pro-accounts political propaganda under George W. Bush. (Hey, your tax dollars at work, folks!)

I've left public service, and I don't plan to ever go back to working on Social Security policy. I'm on no one's payroll, and I have no incentive to write this review (or to have read this book, for that matter) other than my continued concern that people will let the Republicans destroy this critical program that keeps millions of working and retired families (aged, disabled, and young and old survivors) out of poverty. I am writing this only as a concerned private citizen (and a fiscally conservative moderate one at that). Whatever your political orientation, unless you're super-rich or on Wall Street, it's in your rational self-interest to oppose Social Security privatization. As I said earlier, the Republican elite are far to the right of their own citizen constituencies on this issue.

Most observers are saying the fight over Social Security privatization is over, but I don't put anything past this current group of Republicans. Sowing the seeds of Social Security's destruction is a long-standing fantasy of the Republican elite. So long as they control the Congress, the Senate, and the White House -- and there are Big Moneyed interests to appease -- millions of working families are at risk of losing their future Social Security benefits in the form of "personal accounts." Read Mr. Conason's book, inform yourself, spread the word, and make your voice heard.

Just saw on c-span last night a vice-president of Bank of America talking about how we need to get rid of social security, medicaid and medicare spending to offset Katrina. Why is BofA supporting Bush's destruction of SS? Another speaker on the program said these programs are the last thing we need to worry about since Bush's balance of payments situation (where foreigners buy our bonds to subsidize our consumption of foreign products) is so out of whack it's going to do us in first, before any of the other programs. BUT BUSH IS STILL TRYING DO DO IN THESE PROGRAMS AND GET RID OF THEM PERMANENTLY. He is such a crooked crony capitalist. He should be impeached along with Rove and DeLay.

If the Ku Klux Klan were to suddenly announce a plan to help black people it would be advisable for blacks to stay as far away from it as possible and when Conservatives announce their intention to save Social Security you can bet that saving it is the last thing on their minds. For 70 years Conservatives have seethed over the existence of Social Security as the de facto centerpiece of the New Deal and St. George W was to be the last best hope to slay the dragon once and for all.

In a sense `The Raw Deal' seemed dated even before it hit the bookshelves since personal accounts were already dead in the water. The disastrous sales pitch may have had a lot to do with timing since it came on the heels of the second largest stock market collapse in history as well a series of corporate scandals. A few sustained years of stock market success and the public might quickly find itself blinded by dollar signs. In another sense this book couldn't be any more timely as it's a template for the operating methods of the Bush administration and the Republican party. The fight for privatization is a classic attempt by wealth to usurp debate. This is boilerplate Bush with attempts to stack the deck, ignore impartial advisement, bully businesses and politicians, use industry sponsored Think Tanks to unleash mountains of biased information and as Bush himself said `catapault the propoganda'. In one of the most cynical moves of late, Conservatives used what are called Astroturf organizations. These are groups that give off the illusion of being grassroots movement for a specific demographic (blacks, elderly etc.) when in fact they are corporate funded with little to no actual members. Meanwhile, in perhaps the lowest move of the battle Conservative funded USA Next, fresh from Swiftboating John Kerry unleashed its fury on AARP claiming them to be anti-military and pro gay marriage.

Social Security `reform' is dead for now but the methods used to push it are so routine at this point that it would be well worth people's time to analyze what was done. In all the back and forth people tend to forget or perhaps never realized that the Bush administration never once drafted specific proposals. Sure they would drop hints and ideas but nothing substantive for critics to actually analyze. The intention was to win the war first and figure out if a solution was feasible later. Since the Bush administration didn't give a damn about arguably the most successful government program ever it didn't matter whether or not any eventual solution worked.

"The Raw Deal" is a small book at 136 pages that can be read in a few short sittings but it's packed with information. The ideas within are much broader than Social Security. They are about leadership, honesty (mostly a lack thereof), cynical politics and manipulation of the public. It's about a president whose ideas are so vacuous that he can only give speeches before pre-selected audiences of converts and sycophants. "The Raw Deal" is a relatively small investment in time that informs far beyond its short length.

A great read by an informed guy... The Bush administration is still trying to sneak SS "reform" under the radar. All it amounts to is a gift to wall street. As always, Conason is on point.

Conason begins the book with a minor blooper referencing the three characteristics of a high-pressure sale. The first two were: 1)Create a sense of urgency (eg. "limited time only," and 2)Conjure a keen sense of opportunity - eg. "new and improved." I never could find #3. Nonetheless, he goes on to provide excellent material on how Bush et al are truly trying to destroy Social Security, switching from privatization to partial privatization to personal accounts to progressive indexing as opposition mounted.

Conason reports that Social Security has been a priority Republican target since FDR, referencing Eisenhower (he thought opponents were idiots), Goldwater, Reagan (he talked both pro and con; ended up establishing the credible Greenspan-led commission that laid the foundation for continuing its stability), to Bush #2.

GWB, rather than establish a credible commission aka his hero Reagan, stacked the deck entirely with privatization supporters. (Originally as a candidate he called Social Security "the single most successful government program in history," and promised to "lock away more than $2 trillion of the federal surplus for the program's future benefits.) Then, rather than pursue the issue his first term (and damage re-election prospects) nothing happened until immediately after 1/05.

Claiming a crisis, and a means to save the system Bush hit the trail, aided by the support of AIG (American Independent Group - world's largest insurer), the CATO Institute (Coors funded pro-business "think-tank"), and phony groups hiding behind innocuous and misleading-sounding fronts (eg. "Pro 21" - supposedly a black group in support consisted of a black director and a white executive director; "United Seniors claimed over 1 million members - yet only $2 million of its '03 revenues came from members, and most of the rest from the pharmaceutical industry), tried to sell a litany of lies across the country. Example: Social Security discrimates against minorities because they don't live as long. (The claim ignores the higher benefits they receive from disability and survivors' insurance, and has been refuted by the GAO and the Social Security Admin's Office of the Chief Actuary.) Nonetheless, this point raises an interesting question - Why doesn't Bush have interest in improving minority life expectancy and incomes if he want to help them?

Another ploy was to raise the hope of easy money - the new plan would offer much better returns, as much as 10%/year over the long run. Countering, Professor Schiller (author of "Irrational Exhuberance" and its alarm about overvalued stocks) suggests less than half that amount would be more accurate - and that doesn't even take into account the fees that would be charged - now averaging 1.09% for mutual funds. (0.65% would generate an estimated $940 billion in fees over 75 years.

Meanwhile, while Bush et al bewail Social Security's demise, they also omit the fact that their new Medicare drug benefit will cost an estimated double the Social Security shortage!

Alternatives to Bush's "salvation" include eliminating the upper limit on taxable Social Security earnings (now $95,000+), and increasing the employee share by 0.9% over 50 years.

Possibly the only "good" out of the President's effort is that it takes attention away from declining private pension and health insurance coverage, stock frauds, Iraq, and outsourcing.

Given the current state of affairs in Washington, it's highly unlikely that Bush is going to be able to get very far with his plan to abolish..... (or "reform", as he puts it) Social Security. The Republicans aren't suicidal enough to bring this up before the midterm elections, and let us hope that the results of the elections will put the kibosh on this at least for a while. So the alarm that the book sounds is a bit outdated, since the public woke up to what was going on (at least partly thanks to books like this). But it's still worth reading as an expose of some of the tricks the Republican noise machine has been up to. My favorite episode involved the attempt to paint the stodgy AARP as pushing gay marriage (remember that one?). Let's hope people don't forget it!

I have read enough of Mr. Conason's reporting to know that I respect his writing. I have not yet finished this book so I really didn't want to jump in and write a review yet, but reading Mr. Steven Tooley's review made it irresistible.
I live in England and it's news to me that it's a fact - sorry 'FACT' - that England has fully privatized pensions and that they are going like gangbusters. (Note the lack of figures and percentage return stats offered to support this contention).
It must be a different England then, where there is currently a discussion on how private pensions are going to fall short and that it's time to abandon the idea of privatizing pensions across the board, which has never been implemented. So, that's not so much a FACT as a lie - sorry, a LIE.
The rest of that review is as tedious as this - everything is presented as FACT, when actually it's his opinions through and through. E.g. the cost of administering private pensions would be less than social security. Really? Says who? Not any of the comparisons I've read, so mind telling us who says this? Mr. Tooley maintains a dignified silence as to the source of this FACT...
It became ever so much funnier when I looked at the other reviews that Mr. Tooley has written - his review of Al Franken's latest book (highly recommended) contains, word-for-word, the same stuff that he's written here. Which kind of tells you all you need to know about this book - it must be good if it's inspiring such pain-staking effort from the trolls of the right. (well, cutting and pasting is *hard work* for them!)

I cannot understand why this book has any appeal. I agreed (and still do agree) with the premise that the Bush Social Security plan was fatally flawed. Joe Conason had my ready and eager mind, but his entire book is based upon the premise that Social Security is the most successful government program ever... and he never developed this premise in any respect. He left the defense of Social Security completely in the hands of Orszag and Diamond. Instead of being a well-reasoned defense for the Social Security program, showing systematically how the Bush proposal attacks the "successful" points of the program, _The Raw Deal_ is nothing but a 130+ page polemic that only serves to reinforce conspiracy theorists.

Finer points throughout the book could easily be debunked as progressive hysteria (which seriously damages the cause of serious liberalism), but there's not much to be gained therein.

By the end of the book he suggests an early edition of Orszag and Diamond's _Reforming Social Security: a Balanced Plan_. I would strongly suggest that one reads the updated edition of that landmark work in progressive economics--one that intelligently (albeit inadequately) explains the Social Security concerns of the federal government and implications of the Bush proposal.